"How she deals with it as she grows remains to be seen, but it is difficult to see how it could not result in long-term adverse consequences to her.

"You now admit what you have done was wrong.

"From the start you characterised your behaviour as some form of bizarre sex education with the child which did not involve sexual gratification from you.

"It appears you had a normal loving upbringing with parents andfamily who still support you.

"There is no psychological or intellectual reason to explain this shocking behaviour.

"Given this offending occurred in the context of this highly obsessive and sexual relationship with this man, defies logic and common sense to discount any level of sexual gratification in your behaviour."

Judge Robertson said the defence had asked him to note her "own dysfunctional attitude to matters sexual".

He said her husband was 12 years her senior and she had limited knowledge of appropriate sexual boundaries.

"You were obsessed with sex and your life was in chaos," he said.

"The psychologist report suggests the developing of some insight into your behaviour.

"Given the Department of Child Safety is now involved, I'm satisfied you are a low risk of reoffending."

Article originally appeared on One in Three Campaign (http://www.oneinthree.com.au/).